Evidently at one point Canepa's company handled the car. If you go through the photos, you'll see the roll cage structure inside the car. On shots with the door open, you'll see roll cage tubes disappear into the side sides of the dashboard. Looking at engine compartment photos, you'll see the tubes come through the firewall and go down to the original light perimeter chassis. In the trunk photos, there are tubes beside the fuel cell. Those come from the back side of the cage and extend to the rear of the car and connect to the original perimeter chassis.

Basically the floor pan is attached to the perimeter chassis. The roll cage extends from one end of the car to the other and is welded to it. The big difference between then and now is that the '69 didn't seem to have much cross bracing in the front and rear like the NASCAR cars do these days.

By the way, roll cages in stock cars began to appear in maybe '65 or '66 (going from memory) by the Holman-Moody organization.

Actually I was thinking of the Fords that I feel sure did not have the bars through the firewall. The Chevs all did I think. As did the Bob Jane one here in Oz. though that was ZL1, not a girly Z28!!The Camaro front chassis is rubber monted [originally] to the body shell, easier to build and repair as a car but never as stiff as a Mustang in particular. Though the Mopars for the era were pretty good too. I feel the AMCs were built similar to the Camaros?For mine the Chevs had the best engines, the Fords the best chassis, and the Mopars were a decent all round package with a decent engine, strong body shell though torsion bar front end must have been a pain to make go fast

A driver at the Hickory North Carolina speedway filled his water bottle with 25 pounds of lead buckshot, and placed it on the right hand side of the car to help with weight distribution.
Two things gave him away to officials:
a) the bottle was too far away from him to be used during a race;
b) when one of the officials inspected the bottle, he needed to use both hands to pick it up.

There are rumours that the Fiat 128 that won the small car class at the 1973 Bathurst 1000 had been running oversized front tyres to produce greater speed, before switching to a narrower set of legal width rubber during their final pit stop to ensure the car would pass post-race scrutineering if it won. The Datsun 1200 driven by Bill Evans/James Laing-Peach in the same race used a close-ratio 5-speed gearbox that was an option on Japanese cars, but was not available on any 1200s sold in Australia. Datsun Team Racing boss John Roxburgh was armed with all the official homologation paperwork from the factory and persuaded CAMS to OK the gearbox.

1998 Le Mans - Under the GT1 class rules of the time, the cars had to have a luggage compartment capable of carrying a standard suit case to satisfy the 'GT' part of the name.
Toyota Team Europe claimed that because their GT-One's fuel tank was empty during scrutineering, it could, theoretically, hold a suit case! The ACO agreed with them, and thus Toyota were basically able to enter a full-on prototype in the GT1 class.

Originally posted by Graham Clayton.....There are rumours that the Fiat 128 that won the small car class at the 1973 Bathurst 1000 had been running oversized front tyres to produce greater speed, before switching to a narrower set of legal width rubber during their final pit stop to ensure the car would pass post-race scrutineering if it won. The Datsun 1200 driven by Bill Evans/James Laing-Peach in the same race used a close-ratio 5-speed gearbox that was an option on Japanese cars, but was not available on any 1200s sold in Australia. Datsun Team Racing boss John Roxburgh was armed with all the official homologation paperwork from the factory and persuaded CAMS to OK the gearbox.....

Regarding the Fiat...

There was a limit on the wheel rim width for each class in Touring Cars. Tyres merely had to avoid rubbing on the bodywork if they were on the right size rims.

It is possible, of course, that the Lakis Manticas/Peter Lander 128 had oversize rims on during the race and that it went unchecked, but it's probably wrong to put it the way you have. You are partially, at least, ignoring the freedoms that came in that year.

With regard to the Datsun, this was a bit of a sore point with a lot of other competitors. In other markets the Datsun 1200 was freely available with the 5-speed box, the homologation allowed different gearboxes to be used based on minimum production quantities, Rockerbox was a bit of a smarty anyway. But he didn't have to persuade the CAMS to accept the box, it would have been in the FIA papers which also qualified cars for the race.

Paul Hamilton might have something to say on this point as he was quite involved in one of the Minis running against these cars. And by the way, the Datsun beat the Fiat by 1m 51s in the race. The biggest problem I see with that is the person getting the kudos for steering it to victory didn't deserve such acclaim.

1998 Le Mans - Under the GT1 class rules of the time, the cars had to have a luggage compartment capable of carrying a standard suit case to satisfy the 'GT' part of the name.Toyota Team Europe claimed that because their GT-One's fuel tank was empty during scrutineering, it could, theoretically, hold a suit case! The ACO agreed with them, and thus Toyota were basically able to enter a full-on prototype in the GT1 class.

The story I heard about that car was that the fuel tank was surrounded by a box-like construction which was said to be the luggage compartment. When officials told that it contained the fuel tank so could not contain luggage, the Toyota men asked to point out where in the rule could be found that the luggagebox had to be empty during scrutineering. And since such a rule was nowhere to be found in thier opinion they had put the fuel tank in the luggage box.ACO officials could do nothing else but atmit that Toyota was right so OKayed the construction thought did tell Toyota that it was not within the spirit of the rules.

That is the version I heard. but it seems there are more versions of what happened that year...

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the swiftie that Harry Schell pulled out late in qualifying for the 1959 United States Grand Prix at Sebring. His quickest time had been 3 minutes 11 seconds, but just before the end of the session he managed a 3 minute 5 second lap, putting him on fourth place on the grid behind Stirling Moss, Jack Brabham and Tony Brooks.

The reason for his fast lap only came out after the race. Just beyond the MG bridge and before the esses was a sharp right turn that apparently led nowhere. Schell found, however, that it connected with the end of the Warehouse Straight, bypassing the entire straight and the Warehouse Hairpin. He had secretly cut across and come back on the course during a lull in the traffic, thus cutting 5 seconds of his previous best lap time.

Schell's manoeuvre put him third on the grid, not fourth. This demoted Brooks to the second row of the grid. If this had not happened Brooks might not have been rammed by his team mate at the start, and thus still been in a position to fight for the championship.

I'd always thought that the vinyl top was a remedial measure applied during the season, when the roof - being rather thin - had begun to distort under the strains of racing and might become obvious. Thus, the extra weight would not have been so important compared to all the other lightening and developments built into the existing car - the vinyl top not being part of the plan before the car had been assembled and raced.

I then checked Donohue/van Valkenburgh book, in which it's written:

"…we were constantly repainting our cars, and it cost about $400 to paint the top alone. So I figured that a $50 vinyl roof ought to last the entire season. Well… actually it wasn't just a cost consideration because wehad acid-dipped the top a little too heavily and it was wrinkled enough so that it looked bad in paint. But it wasn't aluminum or chopped full of holes as some of our competitors claimed."

They say they only acid-dipped because 'everyone else was doing it'... I don't think Donohue instigated much that was outright cheating, did he? At least most of it was quite clever! I think the self-termed "Unfair advantage" actually did them a bit of a disservice.

They say they only acid-dipped because 'everyone else was doing it'... I don't think Donohue instigated much that was outright cheating, did he? At least most of it was quite clever! I think the self-termed "Unfair advantage" actually did them a bit of a disservice.

Interesting. In some other material, I read that originally GM stamped a set of Camaro panels out of ligther gauge steel than the normal production car had. Basically they had to stop normal production to do this, which was very expensive. However, the body panels were noticable lighter. A car was built and tested with these panels, and deemed a success, but the car was crashed and the body destroyed. Acid dipping was a way to accomplish the same thing. Was there anything in the book to corroborate this?

Actually I was thinking of the Fords that I feel sure did not have the bars through the firewall. The Chevs all did I think. As did the Bob Jane one here in Oz. though that was ZL1, not a girly Z28!!The Camaro front chassis is rubber monted [originally] to the body shell, easier to build and repair as a car but never as stiff as a Mustang in particular. Though the Mopars for the era were pretty good too. I feel the AMCs were built similar to the Camaros?For mine the Chevs had the best engines, the Fords the best chassis, and the Mopars were a decent all round package with a decent engine, strong body shell though torsion bar front end must have been a pain to make go fast

I have to admit that my knowledge here is limited. While I know all the cars were unibody construction, I can only guess that they all originally had a front subframe. I would think that a subframe in the passenger car sense wouldn't be very useful for a race car. Since you're after a rigid (theoretically) chassis structure, bolting on a subframe that carries the engine and front suspension, it seems like it wouldn't be the way to go.

re: the specially-made light panels... yes - they're mentioned too; it was a previous car, or a previous incarnation of the same one; when so much gets changed or replaced where does one car end and another begin? :-) Donohue remarks that the team members themselves got confused between two cars, particularly when then tried (successfully) getting the one older, lighter car (of dubious legality) through tech inspection, and qualifying, in the guise of both machines by switching the numbers. At this point I should, perhaps, modify my previously-posted point on outright cheating...

Ford did a lot of light panel stamping here in the late Series Production days of the mid-sixties through to 1972... this carried on into the replacement category further into the seventies...

But mainly for the 'works' team. Mind you, favoured privateers got light bodies too, and they had some variations in pickup points for the front suspension as well.

I remember Ray Morris telling us about this. The Falcon had grease nipples (or was that bolts for adjusting the camber) that were accessed through holes in the inner guard (fender). When they lowered to top wishbone pickup points these no longer lined up with the holes in the body, he reckoned they should have thought of that at the time!

When Moffat crashed the XA coupe at Phillip Island at the end of the '73 season he was livid that the spare body that had been stamped in lighter gauge sheet and assembled had been given away.

This happened because John Goss, at the time a very strong Ford competitor (he almost won Bathurst that year) was winning Sports Sedan races in the Laurie O'Neil Porsche and Ford reminded him that he was beating Fords and that he was therefore working against their best interests despite the back door assistance he was getting.

So they gave him the spare lightweight body to build up as a Sports Sedan. Later it was sold to Alan Collins and then during his ownership it was stolen and destroyed.

Earlier I posted an account of how Penske's organization used The Lightweight for inspection and qualifying for both cars. And yes, that was actual cheating and not rules bending. To me, the difference is:

Cheating: being in direct violation of a rule
Rule Bending: exploitation of an undefined or poorly defined area; AKA a Grey Area

There was a limit on the wheel rim width for each class in Touring Cars. Tyres merely had to avoid rubbing on the bodywork if they were on the right size rims.

It is possible, of course, that the Lakis Manticas/Peter Lander 128 had oversize rims on during the race and that it went unchecked, but it's probably wrong to put it the way you have. You are partially, at least, ignoring the freedoms that came in that year.

With regard to the Datsun, this was a bit of a sore point with a lot of other competitors. In other markets the Datsun 1200 was freely available with the 5-speed box, the homologation allowed different gearboxes to be used based on minimum production quantities, Rockerbox was a bit of a smarty anyway. But he didn't have to persuade the CAMS to accept the box, it would have been in the FIA papers which also qualified cars for the race.

Paul Hamilton might have something to say on this point as he was quite involved in one of the Minis running against these cars. And by the way, the Datsun beat the Fiat by 1m 51s in the race. The biggest problem I see with that is the person getting the kudos for steering it to victory didn't deserve such acclaim.

I drove a Morris Cooper S at Bathurst that year with Lyn Brown and, along with most other Class A competitors, we were pretty agrieved by the Datsun team entry of a car which, although quite clearly homologated with all its trick options, was not seen as 'in the spirit' of an event which, in those days, remained a competition between largely unmodified cars as seen on Australian showroom floors. Our entrant, Jack Hayward, lodged a protest based on a provision in the event regulations which required that all competing cars must have been 'on sale to the general public' at the time their entry was submitted. I was nominated to present our case and, as there was no way a Datsun 1200 with the 5 speed box, long range fuel tank etc. etc. had ever been on general sale in Australia we were looking pretty good for a win which would have been a real one up on what was about the highest profile team competing in Class A. However, John Roxburgh convinced the stewards that the FIA homologation was evidence that the car in that specification had been on sale to the general public in Tokyo and the regulations made no mention of where the car was required to be sold.

Our appeal was therefore dismissed but Rockerbox later had the good grace to concede to me that he had been seriously concerned about the appeal, thought I had argued the case well and that we had really been on moral high ground. John was not always an easy man to relate to but, following that incident, he always treated me with a lot of respect and we had quite a good relationship which was quite handy at times during his term as CAMS president.

We had competed regularly against the trick little 1200 in other rounds of the manufacturer's championship that year but it was only at Bathurst that it was vulnerable to our appeal because of that one liner in the event regulations.

I drove a Morris Cooper S at Bathurst that year with Lyn Brown and, along with most other Class A competitors, we were pretty agrieved by the Datsun team entry of a car which, although quite clearly homologated with all its trick options, was not seen as 'in the spirit' of an event which, in those days, remained a competition between largely unmodified cars as seen on Australian showroom floors. Our entrant, Jack Hayward, lodged a protest based on a provision in the event regulations which required that all competing cars must have been 'on sale to the general public' at the time their entry was submitted. I was nominated to present our case and, as there was no way a Datsun 1200 with the 5 speed box, long range fuel tank etc. etc. had ever been on general sale in Australia we were looking pretty good for a win which would have been a real one up on what was about the highest profile team competing in Class A. However, John Roxburgh convinced the stewards that the FIA homologation was evidence that the car in that specification had been on sale to the general public in Tokyo and the regulations made no mention of where the car was required to be sold.

Our appeal was therefore dismissed but Rockerbox later had the good grace to concede to me that he had been seriously concerned about the appeal, thought I had argued the case well and that we had really been on moral high ground. John was not always an easy man to relate to but, following that incident, he always treated me with a lot of respect and we had quite a good relationship which was quite handy at times during his term as CAMS president.

We had competed regularly against the trick little 1200 in other rounds of the manufacturer's championship that year but it was only at Bathurst that it was vulnerable to our appeal because of that one liner in the event regulations.

That was always a very trick little car in more ways than one, Paul. It always concerned me that despite several quite serious smashes including a multiple roll-over at Sandown(?) they always laboriously repaired the original car, rather than re-body it....Your story is not all that dissimilar to the one where we were beaten on the road to a class win by the Gough bros Gemini at the '79 Bathrst 1000. Their car was quite noticeably faster up the mountain and on the straights than our own car, and when it came to post-race scrutineering, it was found to have a ".040 / 1mm over-bore taking it to 1623cc vs the standard 1584.For some reason the scrutineers didn't want to do anything about it, despite the regs requiring standard capacity, and despite it being over-bored out of its 1600 cc class limit, but the Goughs claimed that they had simply "power-honed the bores (despite also fitting over-size pistons.)We had to take it all the way to AMSAC (Australian Motor Sports Appeals Court) before finally having justice served, but some 9 months later....

Whilst not disputing your story, I do wonder if it made that much difference. 1584 to 1623cc is about 2.5% difference which is comparable to the difference in overall weight between a large driver and a small one - 2.5% of a 2000lb car is 50lb or 2.5% of a 1000kg car is 25kg

Whilst not disputing your story, I do wonder if it made that much difference. 1584 to 1623cc is about 2.5% difference which is comparable to the difference in overall weight between a large driver and a small one - 2.5% of a 2000lb car is 50lb or 2.5% of a 1000kg car is 25kg

It certainly does make a difference in a class where they are supposed to be identical to the manufacturer's specification. Where do you draw the line? It either complies or it doesn't. Is 2.5% ok but 3% is not? If you want to follow the per-centage card, on a circuit where the car was doing approximately 3 min lap times, a 2.5% advantage would be a rather handy 4.5 secs a lap..... Or, which would you choose - the engine with 125 or 128 hp? Or more importantly at Bathurst, the engine with 100lb/ft or 103lb/ft torque? Or again, if it was only good for .1sec per lap, which is a miserable 0.05%, it still equates to a handy 7.2 secs at the end of the race.Besides - cheating is cheating.

Originally posted by seldo.....For some reason the scrutineers didn't want to do anything about it, despite the regs requiring standard capacity, and despite it being over-bored out of its 1600 cc class limit, but the Goughs claimed that they had simply "power-honed the bores (despite also fitting over-size pistons.)We had to take it all the way to AMSAC (Australian Motor Sports Appeals Court) before finally having justice served, but some 9 months later....

That's crazy, isn't it?

What was post-race scrutineering for anyway? It was a ritualistic thing, too, at Bathurst. At least once cars could be modified and ran in a series elsewhere all year. But it was still mandatory post-race scrutineering of all three placegetters in each class, and if I'm not mistaken, the fourth through sixth placegetters were supposed to hang around in case they found something too!

Whilst not disputing your story, I do wonder if it made that much difference. 1584 to 1623cc is about 2.5% difference which is comparable to the difference in overall weight between a large driver and a small one - 2.5% of a 2000lb car is 50lb or 2.5% of a 1000kg car is 25kg

The power gain could well be more than the percentage increase in engine capacity as the larger cylinder bore would also increase the compression ratio.

It certainly does make a difference in a class where they are supposed to be identical to the manufacturer's specification. Where do you draw the line? It either complies or it doesn't. Is 2.5% ok but 3% is not? If you want to follow the per-centage card, on a circuit where the car was doing approximately 3 min lap times, a 2.5% advantage would be a rather handy 4.5 secs a lap..... Or, which would you choose - the engine with 125 or 128 hp? Or more importantly at Bathurst, the engine with 100lb/ft or 103lb/ft torque? Or again, if it was only good for .1sec per lap, which is a miserable 0.05%, it still equates to a handy 7.2 secs at the end of the race.Besides - cheating is cheating.

I thought there was some allowance for honing the engine on a rebuild? Though 40 thou is not a hone! Depending on pistons used if it had more compression too.Generally in those days you did gain a little unlike now where you often lose a lot.Those 1200s were cheats really. To my knowledge at that time the cars had to be showroom Australian cars, not the imported versions.That did happen later though with all sorts of ramifications. Moffats 13B efi Mazda is a glaring example.

I have to admit that my knowledge here is limited. While I know all the cars were unibody construction, I can only guess that they all originally had a front subframe. I would think that a subframe in the passenger car sense wouldn't be very useful for a race car. Since you're after a rigid (theoretically) chassis structure, bolting on a subframe that carries the engine and front suspension, it seems like it wouldn't be the way to go.

The GM cars are a unitary body with a bolt in front subframe, everything forward of the firewall is bolt in. As were their full size cars too.The front chassis bolts back to about midfloor next to the sill panels.The Fords and Mopars were an all welded complete unitary body which should be a bit stiffer.The Kar Kraft Mustangs [like the Moffat one here in Oz] actually had a big and obviuos cheat, the area where the front guards bolted on was tapered towards the front putting the nose further down giving them a slight aero advantage. I suspect the Chevs were too, though with the bolt together architecture that would be fairly easy.As for the vinyl tops I always thought that referred to the Dodges, green with black vinyl top.

Back in the 60's there were a lot of Minis being raced. Not sure if it was in the BTCC or what the series was. Anyway, the rules stated that you could not change the original suspension mounting points and that you had to use factory parts. Someone (maybe Ralph Broad of Broadspeed?) devised a method of taking lower front suspension links, heating them up and then stretching them slightly. The effect was obtaining an advantageous suspension alignment with stock parts. The parts were checked for legality by inspection and by weighing. Since they were factory original parts, they passed on both counts!

I worked at BMC Zetland from 1965 to '73, and remember during the Series Production days of the late '60s getting Mini front lower arms prior to the lower balljoint holes being drilled, and then drilling them (IIRC) 1/16" offset, changing the camber from 0.5 degrees positive to 1.0 degree negative. The neg camber was noticeable, but how it was achieved was undetectable. I could list a number of Cooper S racers of the time who used these arms, but even forty years plus later, I'd better not. We also experimented with neg camber on the rear suspension. The little endplates on the subframe had the outer mounting holes for the trailing arms, and we had small plates welded in and the holes redrilled then repainted, once again around 1/16" up, changing nil or slightly positive camber to around 1.0 degree negative. This mod tended to counteract the gain in grip on the front and didn't really work. I think we did some to zero camber rear with slightly more neg. on the front.

Cheating, or bending the rules? Well, cheating, but your honour "Everyone does it." There were other tweaks to suspension and engine, but they were nothing compared to what some of the other makes were doing.

Originally posted by Lee NicolleI thought there was some allowance for honing the engine on a rebuild? Though 40 thou is not a hone! Depending on pistons used if it had more compression too. Generally in those days you did gain a little unlike now where you often lose a lot.

The 1974 CAMS Manual says up to 0.010" overbore - provided it didn't take the engine over the class limit. Pistons would naturally have to comply with the original specs.

Those 1200s were cheats really. To my knowledge at that time the cars had to be showroom Australian cars, not the imported versions.That did happen later though with all sorts of ramifications.....

Your knowledge is letting you down...

There were lots of different rules over the years, particularly the exclusive rules for Bathurst. But even there they allowed 'imported versions' if they were the same as those sold here (witness various LHD Alfas etc).

Eligibility for the 1973 Bathurst race, however, would have been as per the 1974 Manual (I don't have a '73 Manual, but I don't think they changed in that year) where it allows cars, "Fully imported into Australia, being one of at least 5000 identical units produced in 12 months, and recognised by the FIA as being Group A or..."

The 1974 CAMS Manual says up to 0.010" overbore - provided it didn't take the engine over the class limit. Pistons would naturally have to comply with the original specs....There were lots of different rules over the years, particularly the exclusive rules for Bathurst. But even there they allowed 'imported versions' if they were the same as those sold here (witness various LHD Alfas etc).

Eligibility for the 1973 Bathurst race, however, would have been as per the 1974 Manual (I don't have a '73 Manual, but I don't think they changed in that year) where it allows cars, "Fully imported into Australia, being one of at least 5000 identical units produced in 12 months, and recognised by the FIA as being Group A or..."

As you note, Bathurst had its own set of rules which required amongst others that (1) the engine had to be standard capacity, (2) pistons had to be standard OE, (3) Re-boring was not permitted (4) honing was permitted for clearancing, (4) Options were not (at that stage) permitted - if you had say a LSD available as an option in a stripper, but standard in a luxury version, you had the choice of the heavy one with the diff or the stripper without - you couldn't mix and match.I think that the .010" overbore you mention related to CAMS "Series Production" racing which was different to Bathurst's own set of rules, but still precluded over-boring out of the class

Hope nobody minds, but I keep being reminded of things that took place over 50 years ago [nostalgia?].

Appendix J rules allowed over-boring, provided it didn't put the capacity out of the class. My 1200 VW engine could go to 1300cc.

The finned cylinders looked like they could be bored out to 80mm [from 77mm], which would give 1287cc. Lionel Jones was the man to see about this task, and after a quick look he thought it should be OK.

When I asked if he was sure, Lionel replied in his 'dry' way...."Oh yes - the worst that could happen is you end up with a lot of big washers."

Both Series Production and a Bathurst run for unmodified cars were gone for 1973, which is when the Datsun 1200 ran. The many changes that could be made to cars from '73 onwards, however, did not allow boring over of the class limit, just that 0.010" oversize.

Yes, under those rules the standard pistons had to be used, standard rods, original heads etc. Even then, rods and cranks could receive heat treatment or chemical treatment different to production parts. The block and head could be decked, ports modified, the flywheel could be lightened, camshafts were free, valve materials were free but original sizes had to be retained and valve lift was not permitted to go over the original. Valve springs, caps, collets etc were free, rockers could be modified provided they retained the same dimensions. Carburettors could be changed.

The fitting of a limited slip or even locking the final drive was permitted.

The 1974 CAMS Manual says up to 0.010" overbore - provided it didn't take the engine over the class limit. Pistons would naturally have to comply with the original specs.

Your knowledge is letting you down...

There were lots of different rules over the years, particularly the exclusive rules for Bathurst. But even there they allowed 'imported versions' if they were the same as those sold here (witness various LHD Alfas etc).

Eligibility for the 1973 Bathurst race, however, would have been as per the 1974 Manual (I don't have a '73 Manual, but I don't think they changed in that year) where it allows cars, "Fully imported into Australia, being one of at least 5000 identical units produced in 12 months, and recognised by the FIA as being Group A or..."

Ray, the 1973 Bathurst race was not run strictly in accord with the production car rules in the CAMS manual. The protest lodged by Jack Hayward was based on a provision in the Bathurst regulations which was not mentioned in the CAMS manual and did not apply to any other events that year which was why we had to wait until Bathurst to have a shot at the Datsun.

Jack had run the Mini at Sandown earlier in the year with Lyn Brown at the wheel and been beaten by the Datsun largely because of its VERY large homologated fuel tank which meant that it ran right through without a stop. For the Bathurst race we were able to overcome that handicap as the rules allowed us to fit a larger tank within a defined capacity limit bigger that the standard Cooper S tank but only provided it was done for 'safety' reasons and was an approved safety bladder type tank. The Datsun was still a threat, however, and we had recognised some time back that the Bathurst regs included the requirement that all cars have been 'on sale to the general public' at the time entries closed. Jack kept his cards close to his chest and waited until after qualifying before lodging the protest which then raised a not so mild panic in the Datsun camp.

John Roxburgh later conceded to me that he had not fully understood the tighter eligibility requirements for Bathurst and then initially thought that our protest had them done until he recognised that the regulation did not specify that cars were required to have been on general sale IN AUSTRALIA. Although that had clearly been the intent of the organisers the Stewards rightly recognised that they were obliged to accept the Roxbugh defence because its what the regulations actually say which counts not what they may have been intended to say or mean.

The real shame of the the 1973 Bathurst race for Jack Hayward and Team Partyhouse was, however, our DNF not the loss of the protest which we regarded as fundamentally a 'shit stir' designed to upset the 'top end of town'. As you may recall the Partyhouse group were all pretty proficient 'stirrers'!! During the race we ran very well at the front of Class A until the fan belt fell off during my lunch time stint leading to terminal overheating.

I worked at BMC Zetland from 1965 to '73, and remember during the Series Production days of the late '60s getting Mini front lower arms prior to the lower balljoint holes being drilled, and then drilling them (IIRC) 1/16" offset, changing the camber from 0.5 degrees positive to 1.0 degree negative. The neg camber was noticeable, but how it was achieved was undetectable. I could list a number of Cooper S racers of the time who used these arms, but even forty years plus later, I'd better not. We also experimented with neg camber on the rear suspension. The little endplates on the subframe had the outer mounting holes for the trailing arms, and we had small plates welded in and the holes redrilled then repainted, once again around 1/16" up, changing nil or slightly positive camber to around 1.0 degree negative. This mod tended to counteract the gain in grip on the front and didn't really work. I think we did some to zero camber rear with slightly more neg. on the front.

Cheating, or bending the rules? Well, cheating, but your honour "Everyone does it." There were other tweaks to suspension and engine, but they were nothing compared to what some of the other makes were doing.

A friend of mine is restoring a 67 Cooper S, the car that was driven by Paddy Hopkirk and Brian Foley. He recently discovered the offset front suspension arms.

Originally posted by Paul HamiltonRay, the 1973 Bathurst race was not run strictly in accord with the production car rules in the CAMS manual. The protest lodged by Jack Hayward was based on a provision in the Bathurst regulations which was not mentioned in the CAMS manual and did not apply to any other events that year which was why we had to wait until Bathurst to have a shot at the Datsun.....

Given that you've already mentioned this in this thread, Paul, that's is accepted...

The context of my reply to David, however, referred directly to the points he made. The 'mechanical eligibility', if you like, of competing cars.

Given that you've already mentioned this in this thread, Paul, that's is accepted...

The context of my reply to David, however, referred directly to the points he made. The 'mechanical eligibility', if you like, of competing cars.

Ray, my further post was prompted by your recent comment that 'eligibility for the 1973 Bathurst race would have been as per the 1974 manual'. Clearly that was not totally correct as there were additional qualifying eligibility requirements in the event regulations as highlighted by our protest. My memory of the detailed technical regulations is more hazy and I will leave that area to you and David.

Ray, my further post was prompted by your recent comment that 'eligibility for the 1973 Bathurst race would have been as per the 1974 manual'. Clearly that was not totally correct as there were additional qualifying eligibility requirements in the event regulations as highlighted by our protest. My memory of the detailed technical regulations is more hazy and I will leave that area to you and David.

And I'm going to let it lie because I am only relying on a 40 year old memory and both my ROM and RAM are both getting very slow and tired...

Lance Armstrong is talk of the town as far as so called cheating goes at the moment.When I read in The Secret Race, where some of the techniques that he used in order to stay competitive in that murky sport were revealed by another competitor,I recalled a conversation I had with close friend and factory team manager at the Daytona 24 hours in the early 90s.He said that most of his drivers were having blood taken sometime before the race in order for it to be transfused back just before the start.It gave a huge energy boost for that race, which is arguably the hardest of all the enduros, in the same manner as it gives cyclists performance enhancementI did not take him seriously. However, it now seems that it would be a very relevant performance booster.I have never heard of it since in the racing world.Recently, I heard talk of blood transfusions being used in the WRC in the Group B days.Does anyone have any recollections on the subject ?Maybe it is still current practice ?

Lance Armstrong is talk of the town as far as so called cheating goes at the moment.When I read in The Secret Race, where some of the techniques that he used in order to stay competitive in that murky sport were revealed by another competitor,I recalled a conversation I had with close friend and factory team manager at the Daytona 24 hours in the early 90s.He said that most of his drivers were having blood taken sometime before the race in order for it to be transfused back just before the start.It gave a huge energy boost for that race, which is arguably the hardest of all the enduros, in the same manner as it gives cyclists performance enhancementI did not take him seriously. However, it now seems that it would be a very relevant performance booster.I have never heard of it since in the racing world.Recently, I heard talk of blood transfusions being used in the WRC in the Group B days.Does anyone have any recollections on the subject ?Maybe it is still current practice ?

From what I gather that is actually legal. And often practiced. Dont know the worth for a race driver, though I guess increasing endurance for a long event is an advantage. though they do what? 1 hour shifts?

From what I gather that is actually legal. And often practiced. Dont know the worth for a race driver, though I guess increasing endurance for a long event is an advantage. though they do what? 1 hour shifts?

1 hour?Triple stints are common and quadruple stints are not unknown, putting the driver in the car for over 3 and a half hours.

Own-blood infusion increases the level of oxygen in the blood. I can't see how this could be of benefit to a racing driver.

However, I believe that increased oxygen level is due to drawing blood after training at altitude. When you go down to lower altitudes, your oxygen level goes down naturally. So, before you compete at lower altitudes you would inject the blood with the higher oxygen content.

However, I believe that increased oxygen level is due to drawing blood after training at altitude. When you go down to lower altitudes, your oxygen level goes down naturally. So, before you compete at lower altitudes you would inject the blood with the higher oxygen content.

Less oxygen at higher levels. That is why they train at high levels to improve their stregth, and it seems for a period the oxygen levels in the blood.

I thought that what blood doping does is increase the red cell or haemoglobyn [sp?] count which increases the amount of oxygen the blood can take up and supply to the muscles - think supercharging.

But, I agree that it probably wouldn't be much help in endurance racing or long distance rallies as the tiredness drivers experience is not so much physical as mental.

My understanding of blood loading was that it simply increases the amount of blood in the system which means it can carry more oxygen.Since it is the person's own blood and not treated in any way it isn't a doping offence and presumably impossible to measure = legal.

With all doping issues it is a question of what is accepted and what isn't at that particular time e.g. until EPO was known about (by the rule makers) it wasn't specificied in the rules hence it was legal.If you applied current rules to events in the past a lot of the entrants would be considered to be cheating.

My understanding of blood loading was that it simply increases the amount of blood in the system which means it can carry more oxygen.Since it is the person's own blood and not treated in any way it isn't a doping offence and presumably impossible to measure = legal.

With all doping issues it is a question of what is accepted and what isn't at that particular time e.g. until EPO was known about (by the rule makers) it wasn't specificied in the rules hence it was legal.If you applied current rules to events in the past a lot of the entrants would be considered to be cheating.

Getting back to racing, prior to the start of the 2004 Qatar MotoGP Valentino Rossi's team spun a scooter tyre on the Yamaha rider's starting position, claiming that the heated spot was a "reference point". The more likely reason was to give Rossi more grip at the start, and as a result Rossi started from the back of the grid.

Just after the start of the 1969 Hardie Ferodo 500, Mike Savva's Falcon GTHO, which qualified in 11th position, took to the grass on the inside of the track to overtake the cars in front. The ARDC staggered the grid positions in 1970, in order to give everyone more room, and eliminate the need for anyone to take to the grass to overtake. I presume that were penalties in case someone decided to copy Savva's maneuvre from 1969?